Completely OT : Cannes, Mickael Moore and the Iraq War

Unknown_Enemy · #1 May 27th, 2004, 09:14 AM

My sources are various, I would say "Le Monde Diplomatique",some other newspaper (on the web, mostly US ones) and Stratfor.

www.stratfor.com
it is a private intelligence service dealing with geopolitical policies. I have a basic subscription there. But your are allowed to publish only certain analysis, of course not all of them. However, you can suscribe for their weekly newsletter for free.

tesco samoa · #2 May 27th, 2004, 12:18 PM

rextorres
i think that based on the track record of inteligence that having an inside scoop is a bag of beans , of the non magical nature.

Simeron. You fail to release the most of the world does not think of America as saviours. Based on the track record of the actions of USA since the end of WW2 I agree with them.

I am looking forward to when this mess can be cleared up. From the two contrieved invasions to the stupid security procedures that are slowly closing off our shared open border.

geoschmo · #3 May 28th, 2004, 01:56 AM

Sorry in advance if I offend anyone with this one, but it was too good not to post.

Personally, I think Secretary Powell may be exagerating just a bit again...

[ May 27, 2004, 13:04: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

freduk · #4 May 28th, 2004, 12:20 AM

Simeron the Foxnews article gives an excellent example of how the Americans are misled by the media (the government) into believing their country is succeeding at the goals set.

Hamas never had any power towards the US, it's a group of terrorists that operate solely on Israelian/palestian (to me unlike for Americans this still isn't decided yet) soil.
The fact they back off their earlier threats, is because of the US is for the first time CONSIDERING to review their unconditional support towards the Israelians who have been greatly misgoverning the situation there. This has nothing to do with the military actions of the US in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Fox just makes it look as if "fear" (can you seriously frighten a deeply religious civilization with only death???) will make the terrorists comply to US demands/rules/utopia.

Second: Invading Iraq of course was a big mistake. Yes, Saddam=cruel dictator, but not as fundamentalistic as Al-quade and I guarantee you far too intelligent to even to go into jihad against USA.
It is a fact he had WMD's: USA sold a LOT of WMD's to Iraq in the late 80's, especially chemicals and nerve agents which was for the USA an excellent opportunity to monitor the fatality rate amongst the kurds, dispergation at various circumstances etc. That is a fact. Monitoring this, they knew how much was used and thus would remain.
Yes Iraq had, and maybe still has WMD's but no way to deliver them to the US since scuds don't get past the 150 miles mark IIRC.

Saddam hated Al-quada and vice-versa. Now saddam is down. The people of Iraq are regrouping, they have their differences and can be considered as eachothers enemies but they share one common thing: they HATE America. So they start working together now, and this is where Al-Q (who NEVER would have gotten into Iraq earlier) comes in. They organise stuff, and help them to work together, construct bombs and other evil stuff.

In the end USA will have to leave, as they already starting to talk about that now. It's already out of control.
USA media will make it look nice to the USA-pop but I know it will be a monstrosity. A fundamentalistic country, in full support of Al-Q and its terror.

Slynky · #5 May 28th, 2004, 01:30 AM

Ya know, I'm proud to be an American. I'm also ashamed to be an American. Why? Because America has given me the chance to have an open and objective mind. It's this freedom that allows me to dislike (and be ashamed) of some of the things it has done. A dichotomy of sorts.

But I'm not here to represent the "band" of Americans who love to trash their country. Nor am I here to spew forth "blind" pablum about how great America is. I call it as I see it.

EVERY country dabbles in controlling the information (and "spin") delivered to its citizens. Everyone needs to understand that. I'm sure it has the appropriate "twist" to make each citizen think their country is great while others fail to measure up. It's just a fact of what a country does.

America has done some great things and it has done some terrible things. It has done right and done wrong. It's likely we (Americans) are more in the limelight when we do it than other countries. But all countries are the same in that they have made similar mistakes.

I have had the opportunity to visit over 20 other countries, speak with many, many of those people, and listen. It gives me, I think, a bit of perspective that other Americans who have never left our borders don't have.

Now, in the present discussion, I think the US did wrong. The "facts" that were presented to the US public, IMO, were distorted to generate support. I don't know the real reason we went to Iraq. Maybe will never know. I'm cynical enough to even consider it was a "payoff" for campaign support to the big defense manufacturers.

History DOES show one thing, though...a rather miserable track record of "walking into other countries" and helping set up a government and leader (can you say, "Manuel Noriega, Ferdinand Marcos, Baby "Doc" Duvalier, and the ex-Shah of Iran"?).

I'll close with a quote from "The Devil's Dictionary" written (a compilation) by Ambrose Bierce (that has some application here):

REVOLUTION, n. In politics, an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment. Specifically, in American history, the substitution of the rule of an Administration for that of a Ministry, whereby the welfare and happiness of the people were advanced a full half-inch. Revolutions are usually accompanied by a considerable effusion of blood, but are accounted worth it--this appraisment being made by the beneficiaries whose blood had not the mischance to be shed."

Fyron · #6 May 28th, 2004, 01:42 AM

Quote:

History DOES show one thing, though...a rather miserable track record of "walking into other countries" and helping set up a government and leader (can you say, "Manuel Noriega, Ferdinand Marcos, Baby "Doc" Duvalier, and the ex-Shah of Iran"?).

Actually, the track record is overall pretty neutral. Consider nations such as Japan and Germany after WWII. Definitely new governments were set up after "walking into" these nations.

Slynky · #7 May 28th, 2004, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:
History DOES show one thing, though...a rather miserable track record of "walking into other countries" and helping set up a government and leader (can you say, "Manuel Noriega, Ferdinand Marcos, Baby "Doc" Duvalier, and the ex-Shah of Iran"?).

Actually, the track record is overall pretty neutral. Consider nations such as Japan and Germany after WWII. Definitely new governments were set up after "walking into" these nations.

I was referring to countries that the US decided needed a change of leadership (and then helped instigate it), NOT countries that went to war with us (and therefore, "earned" the US interest in establishing new leadership THAT way). A difference, the way I see it.